SALT LAKE CITY HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting
Held at 451 South State Street, Room 126
A field trip preceded the meeting and was attended by Noreen Heid, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Lee White, Elizabeth Giraud, Nelson Knight, and Janice Lew.
Present from the Historic Landmark Commission were Peter Ashdown, David Fitzsimmons, Wayne Gordon, Noreen Heid, William Littig, Vicki Mickelsen, Oktai Parvaz, Amy Rowland, and Lee White. Scott Christensen and Soren Simonsen were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Louis Zunguze, Planning Director, Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director, Elizabeth Giraud, Planning Programs Supervisor, Nelson Knight, Preservation Planner, Janice Lew, Associate Planner, and Shirley Jensen, Secretary. Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney, was also present.
Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 4:00P.M. Ms. Mickelsen announced that each item would be reviewed in the same order as listed on the agenda, except for one amendment. She said that instructions for the appeals process were printed on the back of the agenda. So that there would be no disruption during the meeting, Ms. Mickelsen asked members of the audience to turn off their cellular telephones and pagers.
An agenda was mailed to the pertinent people and was posted in the appropriate locations in the building, in accordance to the open meeting law. A roll is being kept with the minutes of all who attended the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. The minutes are presented in agenda order, not necessarily as items were presented at the Historic Landmark Commission meeting. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Commission office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Ashdown moved to approve the minutes of the January 15, 2003 meeting. Mr. Littig seconded the motion. Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen, Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Rowland, and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Acting Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
NEW PLANNING DIRECTOR
Ms. Giraud introduced Mr. Louis Zunguze, the new Salt Lake City Planning Director. Mr. Zunguze stated that he is from Zimbabwe but left the country when he was very young. He said that he went to England where he graduated from Kings College. Mr. Zunguze stated that he worked in and around London, England. He said that he is very familiar with Western Europe because he also lived in other countries, such as Sweden, France, and Italy. Mr. Zunguze said that he returned to Zimbabwe for a while and eventually came to the United States where he married. He said that he worked in the states of Georgia and Ohio. Mr. Zunguze said that he has been in the planning 'field for 25 years and has had some experience with historical issues. He concluded by saying that the Historic Landmark Commission has a very important task and he valued the Commission’s input.
On behalf of the entire Commission, Ms. Mickelsen welcomed Mr. Zunguze to Salt Lake City and said that the Commission was delighted that he was in attendance at this meeting and invited him back any time.
COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION
Ms. Mickelsen stated that comments would be taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other issues affecting the historic districts and historic preservation in Salt Lake City. There were no public comments to the Commission.
(Mr. Fitzsimmons arrived at 4:10P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Case No. 001-03. in City Creek Park. by Robert Sperling of Salt Lake City Public Utilities. requesting approval to construct a new building for drinking water chlorination and fluoridation at an existing well site. The building would be located within City Creek Park. at the south end of the block bounded by City Creek Canyon Road, Canyon Side Road, Fourth Avenue, and 220 North Street. This case was scheduled to be heard by the Historic Landmark Commission on January 15. 2003. but was postponed due to an addressing error.
Mr. Knight presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Mr. Knight gave the following overview of the project: The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, represented by Robert Sperling, is requesting approval of a new one story, 1O'x12' building to be located in City Creek Park. The building would house chlorination and fluoridation equipment for a city well that provides culinary water to the downtown area. The site is currently zoned 0-S Open Space, although there are several existing utility boxes at this location. Staff has relied upon the engineering expertise of the Public Utilities Department in determining the technical feasibility of this site and other nearby sites for the proposed building. This portion of the park is located within the Salt Lake City Avenues Historic District, and is also part of the City Creek Canyon/Memory Grove National Register Historic District.
Originally, Canyon Road had been built on two sections on each side of City Creek. The park blocks of City Creek Park were created when City Creek was put underground in 1909 to protect the water supply and prevent accidental drowning. Residents of the area petitioned the City to make the in-filled creek bed into a park. By 1912 a small formal park had been completed on the strip between Third and Fourth Avenue and a green area was constructed in the park area above Fourth Avenue, the location of the propose fluoridation building.
City Creek Park, as it is now, was developed in 1995. The major portion of the park is located at North Temple and State Street. The park blocks were renovated and City Creek was brought back to the surface. City Creek is a major supplier of drinking water for this part of the city. There also are a nurr1ber of artisan wells within the city. One of the well sites is located within the park. The citizens of Salt Lake County passed an initiative in 2000 requiring all drinking water in the county to be fluoridated. Salt Lake City is currently in the process of implementing this decision. The Salt Lake City water system must be fluoridated by October of 2003. Although most water for the city comes from mountain runoff, a significant amount comes from artesian wells within the city. Water from these wells must be fluoridated at its source before entering the city water system. The proposed building is one of several within the city being constructed by Public Utilities for this purpose. Although it is not currently required, Public Utilities anticipates that the State and Federal governments in the near future will require chlorination of well water. The proposed building will also accommodate equipment for this purpose.
Mr. Knight said that this was the only building subject to review by the Historic Landmark Commission, although there was other sites being reviewed as conditional uses by the Planning Commission. He added that this building would also require conditional use approval from the Planning Commission if the Historic Landmark Commission approves the design.
Mr. Knight indicated that the Greater Avenues Community Council reviewed the proposed building on January 8, 2003, but no vote was taken at the meeting, although the proposed building was discussed extensively. He mentioned a letter to the Historic Landmark Commission from David P. Jonsson and pointed out, even though it was not an official letter from the community council, the letter discussed many of the questions raised by those attending the community council meeting. Mr. Knight said that Mr. LeRoy Hooton, Director of the Department of Public Utilities, responded to Mr. Jonsson's letter. A copy of both letters, were included in the staff report.
Mr. Knight stated that representatives from Public Utilities met with a group of the surrounding neighbors to discuss the proposal. He said that in response to the neighbor's input, Public Utilities modified the design to reduce the size of the building, and examined alternate locations for the building within the park. The revised proposal is that being reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Knight pointed out the alternate site would be immediately north of Ottinger Hall, on the west side of Canyon Road. He indicated that this location would be approximately 400 feet away from the well site, and would require piping from the storage tanks to the well. Mr. Knight noted that there would be a commensurate rise in construction cost and impact of construction to the surrounding neighborhood due to the distance from the well site. He also pointed out that the City Administration had proposed to renovate Ottinger Hall for use as a "Kid City" youth center and this may make locating the fluoridation facility near Ottinger Hall infeasible.
Mr. Knight stated that since the Park Block location is the Department of Public Utilities' preferred site, no drawings have been submitted for the Ottinger Hall location at this time. However, if the Historic Landmark Commission requests Public Utilities to explore the feasibility of locating on that site, Public Utilities would be willing to do so. Mr. Knight indicated that staff made general findings for this site upon the premise that the same building design would be used for either location.
Mr. Knight presented the following proposal by Public Utilities: The proposed building would be 1O'x12', and 11' to the ridge of the hipped roof has changed from the original proposal. The building will be covered with a cobblestone veneer and wood shingles. Three woodman doors on the Northwest and southeast sides of the building would provide access to three separate interior spaces. The interior would contain a day tank, a dosing pump, a personnel shower and eyewash (for emergencies) and an electrical panel.
The design for the landscaping surrounding the building is not fully developed on the attached plans, but Public Utilities representatives have stated that additional hardscaping would be minimal. Daily maintenance and checks are required, but the Public Utilities' vehicles will park on the street and walk to the building. Monthly deliveries to re-fill the fluoridation and chlorination tanks will not require drive-up access to the building. There is a possibility that security concerns will require construction of a fence around the building at some time. No additional details regarding this fence have been provided. If one was ever proposed, the Historic Landmark Commission would review the location, design and materials for the fence. Existing trees and park features would be protected during the construction of the building. The City Urban Forester provides guidelines and monitors construction of projects in the city to ensure that trees on public land are protected.
Mr. Knight referred to Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or alteration of a Non-contributing Structure. In considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of non-contributing structures, the Historic Landmark Commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a non-contributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the Historic Landmark Commission and City Council and is in the best interest of the City.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
The following guidelines, and those included in the discussion of other standards in the ordinance, are from the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, adopted in 1999 by the Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council. Although these standards do not specifically address this specific instance of constructing a non-residential building in a city park, staff has included them as a framework for the Commission to make its findings and determine the suitability of the proposed structure in terms of the standards in the zoning ordinance. The complete text of the guidelines was included in the staff report.
Mass and Scale:
11.4 Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale.
11.5 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block.
Height:
11.7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district.
Width:
11.9 Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings.
Building form standards:
11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
Staff's discussion: The basic design of the building is consistent with accessory structures of similar size seen throughout the city's historic districts. The size (1O'x12'), massing (one story), and hipped roof shape are similar to the numerous sheds, garages, chicken coops, and other outbuildings that were commonly seen historically.
The surrounding buildings that constitute the streetscape in the Canyon Road neighborhood are a variety of single and multi-family residential buildings. Although the buildings in the neighborhood are similar to those in the Avenues and Capitol Hill, the setting of the neighborhood at the gateway to Memory Grove and City Creek Canyon and the unusual, non-grid street pattern distinguish this neighborhood as a distinct part of both districts. The surrounding buildings are an eclectic mix of houses dating from several historic periods, from the 19th century up through the 1980s. Primary Structures in the neighborhood are uniformly larger than the building that is proposed.
If the Park Block Site is determined to be an appropriate location, staff believes that the mass and scale of the building should be reduced as much as possible to preserve the historic vistas across the block, and up and down Canyon Road. This vista is a character defining feature of the neighborhood. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the classical proportions of the building are maintained if the roof pitch or height of the building is reduced. It is staff's opinion that a mini-version of the half-buried "hope houses" constructed during the post war-period would not be desirable.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed building is similar in scale and form to historic accessory buildings in the district and is smaller in size, height and massing than the surrounding primary structures in the neighborhood. The north-south vista through City Creek Park and along Canyon Road is a character-defining feature of the neighborhood and should be maintained. This may be accomplished through siting the building in a less obtrusive location or by design measures that would mitigate the visual impact of the building.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES:
Solid-to-void ratio:
11.10 Use a ratio of wall-to-window (solid to void) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district.
Proportion of building facade elements:
11.13 Design overall facade proportions to be similar to those of historic buildings in the neighborhood.
Rhythm and spacing:
11.14 Keep the proportions of window and door openings similar to those of historic buildings in the area.
Materials:
11.15 Use building materials that contribute to the traditional sense of scale of the block.
13.20 Use building materials that are similar to those used historically.
Architectural Character:
11.17 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those found historically along the street.
11.20 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
Staff's discussion: As with the building's scale and mass, the proposed building is very similar to historic outbuildings in terms of proportion of openings, rhythm and spacing of openings and materials. No windows are proposed for the building. Access to the building would be through wood panel doors of typical size and height. There are also no entrance porches or elements proposed for the building. This is in keeping with the utilitarian character of the building.
The primary materials proposed for the building, a cobblestone veneer wall material and a wood shingle roof, are building materials used historically for similar structures in the city. Cobblestone was used on planter boxes in City Creek Park as early as 1912 (see attached historic photo}. The designers of the 1995 renovation of the park used cobblestone extensively. Although the design draws upon historic design antecedents, it would be distinguishable as a new building.
Staff's finding of fact: The proposed building is similar to outbuildings seen historically in terms of this standard, and is visually compatible with the surrounding streetscape with respect to proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids in facades, and rhythm of entrance porch and other projections. The proposed materials were commonly used historically and were used on current structures within City Creek Park.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape - Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H Historic Preservation Overlay District.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES:
Landscaping:
12.7 Maintain established native or acclimated plantings on site.
12.8 Incorporate indigenous plant materials in new landscape designs.
12.9 The use of traditional site structures is encouraged.
Staff's discussion: The two sites under consideration differ substantially from each other in terms of this standard. Although both are located on sites where other structures have not historically existed, The Ottinger Hall site is at the end of a row of structures that are regularly spaced along and set back from Canyon Road. The addition of another building of this size and height at the end of this line of structures would probably have no negative visual impact. Setting the building back from the street could further reduce any visual impact.
Construction of a building on the Park Block Site would have a greater visual impact on the surrounding streetscape. It is difficult to consider a structure in terms of walls of continuity and rhythm and spacing of structures on the street, because the park blocks along Canyon Road have traditionally been open space, devoid of buildings or large structures. As previously noted, the vistas along Canyon Road and through the park blocks are important, character defining features of this neighborhood. Construction of a building blocking this vista would have a negative impact upon the character of the neighborhood. However, engineering and functional constraints may make a building at this location in the best interest of the city. In this case, reducing the size of the building could mitigate the visual effect of the building on the streetscape. Public Utilities, in their current proposal, have reduced the size and height of the building substantially below that which was initially proposed. With these changes, it is staff's opinion that the proposal would meet the intent of this standard.
Staff's finding of fact: Placing the structure north of Ottinger Hall would reinforce the existing walls of continuity and rhythm and spacing of structures along Canyon Road. Placing the building on the Park Block site would add a new visual element to a portion of the streetscape that has traditionally been open space, but the visual impact of the structure is mitigated by reducing the size and height of the building, and using traditional forms and materials for its design. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements are in keeping with the historic and established design of City Creek Park.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning Director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H Historic Preservation Overlay District or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staff's discussion and finding of fact: There is no subdivision of lots proposed as part of this application. This standard is not applicable.
Mr. Knight stated that the ideal outcome of this case would be to have no additional structures within the existing City Creek Park open space, but the overriding need to fluoridate the water from this well site makes some sort of building within the park a necessity. He commented that it is staff's opinion that the proposed building, as designed, will have the least possible negative effect on City Creek Park and the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Knight added that it is also staff's opinion that the visual impact of the building will be mitigated by placing the storage tanks below ground and reducing the height and size of the building to the minimum required.
Mr. Knight offered the following staff recommendation: "Based upon the findings of fact in this report, staff recommends that the Historic Landmark Commission approve construction of the building at either the Park Block or Ottinger Hall site, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submittal of final plans, including a supplemental landscaping plan to be approved by Planning Staff;
2. Conditional use approval by the Planning Commission and fulfillment of all other City Department conditions; and
3. Final plans to be reviewed either by Staff or the subcommittee level." Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
(Ms. Rowland arrived at 4:20 P.M.)
Ms. Heid noted the annex portion on the north side of Ottinger Hall and questioned whether or not that would be removed if Ottinger Hall is renovated into a youth center. Mr. Knight said that annex portion has achieved significance in its own right. He said that it was his understanding that the youth center would use the entire building.
Ms. White suggested putting everything together into one building. She pointed out the power box and other elements on the park block site. Mr. Knight suggested talking to the representative from Public Utilities regarding the feasibility of this suggestion.
Mr. Ashdown asked for a clarification whether or not the Historic Landmark Commission would be considering both the Ottinger Hall site and the City Creek Park site. He added that there may be other comparable sites. Mr. Knight said that it was confusing because the proposal changed just last week. He said, as he understood the proposal, the Ottinger Hall site would be considered as well as the City Creek Park site.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicants to come forward to address the Commission.
Mr. Robert Sperling, representing the applicant, Public Utilities, was present, as well as Mr. Steve England, architect with the Engineering Division. Mr. England stated that Mr. Sperling asked him for assistance for the architectural design of the proposed building. He said that they knew the park would be a sensitive location due to being located in an historic district.
Mr. England talked about the first proposal and how the present proposal has been scaled down. He said that it is a small park and a large building would be an intrusion in the park. Mr. England said that Public Utilities had been working closely with the surrounding neighbors of the park. He mentioned that due to the wall thickness and stone veneer, the outside dimensions of the building would be more like 14'x15'. Mr. England said that present proposal would be a much smaller building by pushing the tanks into the ground 2-1/2 feet. He said the proposed doors entering on the two sides have to do with operating the equipment because OSHA requires the separation of electrical equipment from the tanks. Mr. England said the proposed building would be constructed with a stainless steel frame. He noted that the handrails on the stairway would also be stainless steel.
Mr. England said they had not explored the feasibility of the Ottinger Hall site but would consider that although there would be some additional challenges.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Littig led the discussion by inquiring if the surrounding neighbors have been more interested in Ottinger Hall site. Mr. Sperling said that they have. Mr. England said that they have been in discussion with Rick Graham, Director of Public Services for the City, regarding the Ottinger Hall site and he did not say no, so that is a possibility. Mr. Littig asked if there would be a technical problem of having to pump uphill. Mr. Sperling said that the chemicals have to be applied where the well enters the system. Mr. Littig inquired about the two large tanks that would be underground. Mr. Sperling said they would be used for storing the solution. Mr. England also pointed out the door that would access the emergency showers. Mr. Sperling said that the utility boxes in the park belong to Utah Power and wondered how they were placed in that location. He said he believed they were transformers.
Mr. Wheelwright asked Mr. Sperling to explain the process. Mr. Sperling talked about the two liquid storing tanks and how the liquid would be metered into the system at the well site.
Ms. Mickelsen inquired about the purpose of the day tanks and the security issues with this kind of building. Mr. Sperling said that the day tanks were considered a safety issue. He noted that if the pipes were somehow defrayed, then the only spill would be from the day tanks and not from the huge storage tanks. Mr. Sperling also said that system would have one pipe running inside another pipe for a safety caution. Mr. Sperling said that Public Utilities would provide security at all the locations throughout the system. Ms. Mickelsen mentioned the possibility of building a fence around the building. Mr. Sperling said that could be a possibility, but he did not see a need for it.
Mr. Rowland asked about the chlorination process. Mr. Sperling said that at this time chlorine does not have to be added to the well, but Public Utilities anticipated that the State would require this in the future. Mr. Wheelwright said that evidently the water that comes from a deep optimum source is pure so it does not need to be chlorinated to make it safe to drink.
Mr. Gordon inquired about the 800 South and 500 East artisan well. Mr. Sperling said that well site will remain pure. Mr. Gordon talked about the lines that would have to be constructed to carry the chemicals to the well site. Mr. Sperling said that if we consider the Ottinger Hall site, the lines would be buried underneath the street. Mr. Gordon expressed his concern about harming the existing trees. Mr. Sperling said that the trees would not be affected. Mr. Gordon suggested pushing the building into the ground a little more, which would make the non-public service access a little steeper. Mr. England said that could be possible.
Mr. Fitzsimmons asked how the areas on both sides of the building would be drained and Mr. Sperling said those areas would be drained by sump pumps. Mr. Fitzsimmons was concerned about hiding places in a public park, and suggested revising the design to delete the proposed stairwells and instead slope the grade at these locations to the height of the entrance doors. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if Public Utilities anticipated lighting the building. Mr. England said that has not been decided but there are several ways in which that could be done, such as motion detectors. He said that he was sensitive to the surrounding neighbors and questioned whether or not lights would be on the building all the time.
Ms. White inquired if there would be an increase in traffic. Mr. Sperling said that the site would be inspected twice a day and the only increase in traffic would be when the solutions would be delivered once a month. Mr. Sperling also mentioned that the well is only used in the summer months from April through October, so during the winter months, there would be no increase in traffic.
• Mr. Ashdown inquired why the facility could not be below ground and accessed from a manhole in the street. Mr. Sperling said that it was a safety issue. He said that Public Utilities wanted to avoid personnel going underground in the same location as the chemicals, with the electrical equipment, and the emergency shower.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. The public made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Mr. Steve Brewer, who resides on Canyon Road, stated that he was attending this meeting representing the other neighbors. He asked the neighbors to stand. Mr. Brewer talked about the meeting the neighbors had with Public Utilities. He said that this was a wonderful and active neighborhood and the residents made a considerable contribution of energy and money to the Memory Grove and City Creek Park renovation, and many participated in the restoration of the park after the 1999 tornado. Mr. Brewer said that the neighborhood has been grateful for the information and cooperation from Mr. Sperling and others on behalf of Public Utilities. Mr. Brewer expressed his concerns about a facility that has to have an emergency shower being constructed in the park where many children play. He pointed out that the park site is an open space and the structure would be an obstruction and create a visual barrier in the neighborhood. Mr. Brewer believed that to be an important issue. He said using that space adjacent to Ottinger Hall to construct the facility would be less intrusive to the neighborhood. He added that it would be included with the row of buildings. Mr. Brewer stated that if the annex to Ottinger Hall could be used, as an alternative site, no other above ground buildings would have to be constructed.
Mr. Steve Spencer, who resides on Canyon Road, stated that his family has been part of the neighborhood for many decades and said he agreed with Mr. Brewer. Mr. Spencer said that more than just the residents of the neighborhood use the park. He talked about the horse-drawn carriages that go through the park as an inspiration to the tourists, and the many joggers who use the park. Mr. Spencer that taxpayers have paid a lot of money to make the park a great place to use and to visit. He believed that the proposed site next to Ottinger Hall would be preferred. He mentioned that currently children do not play around Ottinger Hall, but they do play in the park. Mr. Spencer said that some of the bulk of the proposed building could be hidden by the hillside. He stated that there were no other structures in the neighborhood built of cobblestones; just walls and creek beds. Mr. Spencer said that the proposed building would fit in better next to Ottinger Hall. Mr. Littig commented that the one thing that impacts this neighborhood more than anything else is the parking problem.
Mr. David Jonsson, who resides in the area, said that he submitted a letter to the Historic Landmark Commission, which is included in the staff report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. He asked the Commissioners to keep in mind when drafting a motion that the city would not need the water until April of 2004. He added that Mr. Sperling talked about having a structure built by October of 2003, but the well is shut off in October, so the facility would not be needed until April of 2004. Mr. Jonsson stated that the deadline for the City to come back with a better plan or ·Hush out the options would be April of 2004, so at this point he did not believe there was any need for a hasty decision.
Upon hearing no additional requests from the audience, Ms. Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
There was some discussion regarding the wording of a motion. Mr. Littig believed it should be tabled until more information on the Ottinger Hall site was submitted.
Mr. Ashdown said because there were no plans submitted for the Ottinger Hall location, he did not believe that site should be considered at this meeting. Mr. Ashdown suggested that the Commission vote on the park site and if that location is not approved, Public Utilities can come back with a proposal for Ottinger Hall or any alternative sites. He is concerned that Public Utilities would come back and say that the Ottinger Hall would not be a feasible site.
The open space issue was discussion. Ms. Giraud said that the Historic Landmark Commission could not deny the proposal just because it would be constructed in open space. She added that the Commission could deny the proposal because the design would not be appropriate, or it would not match the predominate materials used historically in the district, or the scale and massing would not be appropriate for the streetscape. She said that losing the open space is not a criterion upon which the Commission could make a decision.
Mr. Wheelwright reminded the Commission that the facility would have to be approved as a conditional use by the Planning Commission. He said that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to determine the site for the building.
Ms. Mickelsen said that it seems like the members of the Historic Landmark Commission could evaluate the structure using the criteria within their purview, or recommend pursuing Ottinger Hall as an alternative site. Ms. Giraud said those would have to be two separate decisions.
The discussion continued with members expressing his or her concerns relating to the issues at hand.
First Motion:
Mr. Littig moved for Case No. 001-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission table this proposal and recommend that Public Utilities explore the option of Ottinger Hall as an alternative site and return to the full Commission with additional proposals. Further that the Historic Landmark Commission would need a definitive answer as required by Public Utilities' technical needs as to the use of Ottinger Hall for the proposal. Mr. Parvaz seconded the motion.
The members of the Commission continued to discuss the possibility of other alternative sites besides Ottinger Hall. Mr. Knight said that in his discussion with Public Utilities other sites were mentioned.
Mr. Wheelwright commented that Mr. Lynn Pace, the Deputy City Attorney suggested that another way to approach this would be to let the Planning Commission hold its hearing on the conditional use and make a decision on the site then bring it back to this Commission for the review of the architectural design of the building on the site selected by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if a hearing had been scheduled with the Planning Commission. Mr. Wheelwright said that a hearing had not been scheduled. He added that Public Utilities is under some urgency to proceed because the Planning Commission already approved two other locations for the fluoridation facilities, which are not in an historic district, and Public Utilities would like to package them together for bidding purposes.
It was a consensus of the Commission that the design of the proposed building was not the issue, but the location was a concern to the Commissioners.
Mr. Ashdown inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission recommended a site preference if it would have an impact on the Planning Commission. Ms. Mickelsen suggested that members of the Historic Landmark Commission attend the Planning Commission meeting and let their preference be known. Ms. Giraud also believed that would be very helpful.
Ms. White wondered if it would make more sense to look at alternative sites prior to the Planning Commission public hearing.
Mr. Fitzsimmons suggested that Public Utilities provide additional plans for the building if alternative sites are proposed that would be more suitably scaled to the particular location.
Since there was a need to receive comments from the Deputy City Attorney, it was the consensus of the Commission to reopen this portion of the meeting to public comment. Ms. Mickelsen reopened the meeting. She asked Mr. Pace to make his recommendation.
Mr. Pace stated that the Historic Landmark Commission could request a preference and emphasize that the design of the building would depend on the Planning Commission decision on the location.
As a point of order Mr. Knight stated that if the Historic Landmark Commission voted to continue the case rather than tabling it, the review could be continued at the next meeting without re-noticing it. Mr. Knight said that if the case is tabled, the applicant would have to wait until the March 5, 2003 meeting.
There was some discussion about the urgency of this proposal. Ms. Giraud suggested asking the representative from the Public Utilities to address that issue.
Ms. Mickelsen asked Mr. Sperling and Mr. England to return to the table for further comments. Ms. Mickelsen inquired if waiting until next month to explore other sites would be a significant hardship for the Public Utilities' schedule.
Mr. Sperling stated that it would be a hardship but they could work with it. However, Mr. Sperling expressed his desire to have an approval by the Commission at this meeting. Mr. Sperling asked why the meeting had to be re-noticed because most of the neighbors were in attendance at this meeting. Ms. Mickelsen inquired if it would be logical if Public Utilities would have additional site plans two weeks from now. Mr. Sperling said that he believed that could be accomplished. He said that Public Utilities have two locations in mind.
Ms. Heid talked about Mr. Jonsson's remarks regarding the timetable question that Public Utilities would have until April of 2004. Mr. Sperling said that was true. He added that the urgency was in packaging the sites together for bidding purposes. Mr. Sperling said if that did not happen, they could deal with it. It was determined that the bids would go out on March 18, 2003.
The proposed design of the building was briefly discussed once more with the applicants.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he needed clarification regarding the position of the Historic Landmark Commission. He inquired if the Historic Landmark Commission's position was to tie its ruling to the site for the building, prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Ms. Mickelsen believed that the Historic Landmark Commission would make a ruling on the adequacy of the building for each site prior to the Planning Commission review for the site location. Mr. Zunguze asked the question, "If the Planning Commission chooses a different site, than the one the Historic Landmark Commission prefers, what would become of the project? Would you subordinate your approval to theirs or would the applicant need to come back to this Commission?" Mr. Ashdown answered by saying that he believed the applicant would have to come back to this Commission even if the Planning Commission rules on a different site.
Again, there was some discussion whether or not the Historic Landmark Commission should review the design of the building for each alternative site, prior to the Planning Commission selecting a site location. Ms. Rowland said that she did not believe the Historic Landmark Commission needed to review the site locations before the Planning Commission rules on the site.
Ms. Mickelsen reclosed the meeting to public comment and continued with the executive session portion of the meeting. She announced that the Chair would entertain a motion.
Amended final motion:
Mr. Littig moved for Case No. 001-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission table this proposal and forward it to Public Utilities to make some resolution with the neighbors and to explore the option of using the site north of Ottinger Hall or other possible alternative sites prior to the review by the Planning Commission, and any proposed design should return to the Historic Landmark Commission for review of the new site. If the site location chosen by the Planning Commission requires a new design of the building, this Commission would review the design. Further, that the Historic Landmark Commission would need a definitive answer as to what is required by Public Utilities' technical needs to the use of Ottinger Hall for the proposal. Mr. Parvaz's seconded still stood. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, Ms. White voted "Aye". Mr. Ashdown was opposed. Mr. Gordon abstained. Mr. Christensen and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Mickelsen thanked the public for caring so much about their neighborhood and thanked them for being here.
Ms. Giraud said that Mr. Pace had to leave by 6:00P.M. and asked the applicant for the next case to delay the public hearing for a short time so Mr. Pace could address the results of the latest Land Use Appeals Board decision regarding the Juel Apartment Building. A short discussion occurred and the applicant offered her support while Mr. Pace made his comments.
[Please note that Mr. Pace's comments are at the end of the meeting under "Other Business".]
Case No. 005-03, at 1020 E. Fourth Avenue. by Susan Mickelsen of Lupine Enterprises. requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence. replacing a non-contributing structure. The property is located in the Avenues Historic District.
Ms. Lew presented the staff report by outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact, and staff's recommendation, a copy of which was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Lew gave the following overview of the project: Susan Mickelsen is requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence at 1020 E. Fourth Avenue. The home is located in the Avenues Historic District in a Special Development Pattern Residential "SR-1" zoning district. The purpose of the SR-1 zone is to "maintain the unique character of older, predominantly single-farr1ily neighborhoods that display a variety of yard, lot sizes and bulk characteristics." The zone allows single-family and twin homes as permitted uses.
Ms. Mickelsen also submitted an application for demolition of the existing structures on the property. According to the historic site form completed in 1980, the existing principal structure appears to have been built in 1953, and at the time of application for demolition (October 2002), was not of the historic period, and thus considered non-contributing. As required by the
zoning ordinance, a request for demolition of a non-contributing building does not have to be heard before the full Commission. The request may be administratively approved provided the Commission members and the property owners within 85 feet of the subject property are notified, and given a period of two weeks to respond if opposed to the demolition. Notices were mailed to property owners within 85 feet on November 26, 2002. No public input regarding the demolition request has been received at this time.
Ms. Lew displayed as sample board of materials as she described the following proposal: This 135' x 60' lot (8,100 square feet) is the site of a one-story frame home with a garage. The plans are for a single-family house with 2,211 square feet of living area (not including an 1,110 square foot unfinished basement level). The proposed house would contain three bedrooms and two full baths. The building footprint would be almost square (32' x 36') in form, with a mansard roof that would give the house a distinctive appearance.
The front elevation is shown on the drawings with a brick and stucco (textured Dryvit system) facade. The other elevations would be sided with the stucco material alone. Wood soffit and fascia are also shown on the drawings. Vinyl casement windows are proposed with the lintels and sills of Styrofoam forms wrapped with stucco in a contrasting color. The material for the decorative arches framing some of the windows would be wood. The proposed roof material would be asphalt shingles. The plans also show a two-car garage of similar materials sited at the southeast corner of the property with access from an alley to the east. The proposal calls for a doublewide garage door. The remainder of the lot would be landscaped.
All proposed work must comply with height, yard and bulk requirements of the SR-1 zoning district:
• The minimum lot size for a single-family detached dwelling is 5,000 square feet.
• The maximum building height allowed in this district is thirty feet or two and one-half stories, whichever is less.
• Setback requirements in this district are 4 feet on one side and ten feet on the other, and twenty five percent of the lot depth (not less than 15' or need not exceed 30') in the rear yard. A front setback of 25' is also required.
• The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent of the lot area.
Ms. Lew referred to Section 21A.34.020(H)(1 through 4) of Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance, H Historic Preservation Overlay District, Standards for Certificate of Appropriateness Involving New Construction or Alteration of a Noncontributing Structure. In considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness involving new construction, or alterations of noncontributing structures, the historic landmark commission, or planning director when the application involves the alteration of a noncontributing structure, shall determine whether the project substantially complies with all of the following standards that pertain to the application, is visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape as illustrated in any design standards adopted by the historic landmark commission and city council and is in the best interest of the city.
1. Scale and Form.
a. Height and Width. The proposed height and width shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Proportion of Principal Facades. The relationship of the width to the height of the principal elevations shall be in scale with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Roof Shape. The roof shape of a structure shall be visually compatible with the surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Scale of a Structure. The size and mass of the structures shall be visually compatible with the size and mass of surrounding structure and streetscape.
Staff's discussion: The streetscape along Fourth Avenue is unusual on this block. The northern side of the street consists of the city cemetery. The surrounding buildings of the subject property are shown on the panoramic photograph attached to the staff report. To the east and separated by an alley and garage, is a one and one-half story Victorian eclectic home on a corner lot that fronts R Street. The house is similar to 185 and 187 R Street, all constructed the same year by builder Frank A. Grant. To the west, the closest structure to the proposed construction is again a garage. The building (198 Q Street) associated with the garage is a two-story cube shaped home with a hipped roof that fronts Q Street, and is similar in style to 180, 184, and 188 Q Street, all built in 1896 by the same developer. The buildings along R and Q Street, are more consistent in character, as most are between one- and two stories in height and present a typical range of styles, types and materials.
The size and mass of the proposed home is similar to the residential structures found on this block and throughout the Avenues District. It is nearly box shaped, with a 36' x 32' footprint. The primary facade is also similar in height. The mansard roof is not a typical roof form found in the Avenues District, although several exist. However, the roof form is compatible with the proposed contemporary style of the house. The following guidelines offer guidance on the scale and form of compatible new construction, are from the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, adopted in 1999 by the Historic Landmark Commission and the City Council. The complete text of the guidelines was included in the staff report.
Mass and Scale:
11.4 Construct a new building to reinforce a sense of human scale.
11.5 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale to the scale that is established in the block.
11.6 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to those seen traditionally in the block. Height:
11. 7 Build to heights that appear similar to those found historically in the district.
11.8 The backside of a building may be taller than the established norm if the change in
scale will not be perceived from public ways.
Width:
11.9 Design a new building to appear similar in width to that of nearby historic buildings.
Staffs finding of fact: The proposed building is compatible in height, width and scale with other buildings on the block and within the district. The proportion of the principle façade is compatible with the surrounding primary structures. The proposed roof shape is not a typical roof form historically used in the Avenues District, but it is not unknown, and will be recognizable as a contemporary design element of the house.
2. Composition of Principal Facades.
a. Proportion of Openings. The relationship of the width to the height of windows and doors of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
b. Rhythm of Solids to Voids in Facades. The relationship of solids to voids in the facade of the structure shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape;
c. Rhythm of Entrance Porch and Other Projections. The relationship of entrances and other projections to sidewalks shall be visually compatible with surrounding structures and streetscape; and
d. Relationship of Materials. The relationship of the color and texture of materials (other than paint color) of the facade shall be visually compatible with the predominant materials used in surrounding structures and streetscape.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES:
Solid-to-void ratio:
11.10 Use a ratio of wall-to-window (solid to void) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district.
Building form standards:
11.11 Use building forms that are similar to those seen traditionally on the block.
11.12 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block. Proportion of building facade elements:
11.13 Design overall facade proportions to be similar to those of historic buildings in the neighborhood.
Rhythm and spacing:
11.14 Keep the proportions of window and door openings similar to those of historic buildings in the area.
Materials:
11.16 New materials that are similar in character to traditional materials may be acceptable with appropriate detailing.
Architectural Character:
11.17 Use building components that are similar in size and shape to those found historically along the street.
11.18 If they are to be used, design ornamental elements, such as brackets and porches to be in scale with similar historic features
11.19 Contemporary interpretations of traditional details are encouraged.
11.20 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged. Windows:
11.21 Windows with vertical emphasis are encouraged.
11.22 Frame windows and doors in materials that appear similar in scale, proportion and character to those used traditionally in the neighborhood.
11.23 Windows shall be simple in shape
Staffs discussion: The proportion of openings and the related rhythm of solids to voids are irregular on the east facade. The middle casement window was originally the only opening shown on the drawings. Staff suggested that additional openings be added to create more visual interest and a better balance of the fenestration pattern. The current drawings reflect this direction. The fenestration pattern shown on the other elevations is more conventional, with regular placement of windows and uniformity of window sizes and openings. The individual window units are not excessively large and are similar in size to others used on buildings in the district.
Although not characterized by a traditional porch element, the front entry is emphasized by a decorative arched frame above the door that is a continuation of the one-story shed roof element that breaks up the wall plane of the front facade. Such treatments may be considered a contemporary interpretation of a traditional detail that also conveys the fact that the building is new.
Stucco finish treatments on main walls and vinyl windows have been approved for new construction by the HLC in the past, when the stucco material has a similar appearance and is consistent with the traditional uses of stucco and the size, proportion and profile of the windows are similar to those seen historically. However, Styrofoam and stucco window framing has been discouraged because it fails to appear similar in scale, proportion and character to traditional window treatments. The proposed roof material is architectural grade asphalt shingles, a material that is ordinarily acceptable for use in the historic districts. The design guidelines recommend the following with respect to the composition of principle facades.
Staff's finding of fact: The design of the proposed project is consistent with the ordinance in several areas including the proportion of openings, rhythm of solids to voids and rhythm of entrance porch and other projections. The project is less compatible visually with the predominant materials used in the area, and thus the commission and applicant should explore other options. The Commission in the past when the stucco has a smooth ·finish and when the proportion and profile of the windows are similar to those seen historically has approved stucco products and vinyl on windows. The commission has discouraged textured stucco and Styrofoam with a stucco-covering framework because they failed to appear similar in character and proportion to the traditional siding treatment and door and window casings. Overall, the proposed project complies with this standard.
3. Relationship to Street.
a. Walls of Continuity. Facades and site structures, such as walls, fences and landscape masses shall, when it is characteristic of the area, form continuity along a street to ensure visual compatibility with the structures, public ways and places to which such elements are visually related;
b. Rhythm of Spacing and Structures on Streets. The relationship of a structure or object to the open space between it and adjoining structures or objects shall be visually compatible with the structures, objects, public ways and places to which it is visually related;
c. Directional Expression of Principal Elevation. A structure shall be visually compatible with the structures, public ways and places to which it is visually related in its orientation toward the street; and
d. Streetscape-Pedestrian Improvements. Streetscape and pedestrian improvements and any change in its appearance shall be compatible to the historic character of the landmark site or H historic preservation overlay district.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES:
District street patterns:
11.1 Respect historic settlement patterns.
11.2 Preserve the historic district's street plan. Building orientation:
11.3 Orient the front of a primary structure to the street. The building should be oriented parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional grid pattern of the block. An exception is where early developments have introduced curvilinear streets, like Capitol Hill.
Staff's discussion: Staff has found it difficult to review the proposed design within the streetscape context because of the location of the property across the street from the city cemetery and the setbacks and orientation of the surrounding buildings. The primary structures on the corner block properties do not front on Fourth Avenue and thus, the siting of the buildings in this area of Fourth Avenue is closer to the street (corner side yards). The location of the garage to the rear of the lot is in keeping with the pattern of alleys and the character of the district. The design guidelines offer the following guidance for siting new construction.
Staff's finding of fact: The directional expression and front setback of the principal elevation is consistent with the district and other buildings with similar frontage on Fourth Avenue, although not with the adjacent buildings. The proposed project meets the intent of this standard.
4. Subdivision of Lots. The planning director shall review subdivision plats proposed for property within an H historic preservation overlay district or of a landmark site and may require changes to ensure the proposed subdivision will be compatible with the historic character of the district and/or site(s).
Staff's finding of fact: This application has no subdivision issues.
Ms. Lew offered the following staff's recommendation: "Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends approval of the proposed project at 1020 E. Fourth Avenue with the following conditions:
1.Review of the final details of the design of the proposed project including materials, as well as any other concerns or suggestions expressed by the Commission, shall be delegated to the Architectural Subcommittee.
2.This approval is for design only. The project must meet all other applicable City requirements.
If the Commission decides to deny the request, is should adopt findings supported by substantial evidence."
Ms. Mickelsen called for questions for the Staff.
Mr. Ashdown inquired about the Styrofoam material. Ms. Lew said that the first plans showed a frame using a Styrofoam material that would have been covered by stucco. She said that the application tends to create a very flat surface. Ms. Lew stated that the applicant had made some changes in materials, based on staff's recommendation.
Mr. Fitzsimmons clarified that exterior insulated finish E.I.F.S. (Exterior Insulated and Finish System) would be used. Ms. Lew said that was correct.
Ms. Heid asked about the textured stucco. Ms. Lew said that was her understanding that the Commission had only approved stucco with a smooth finish. Ms. Giraud said that the smooth ·finish makes it look more like the true Portland cement. Mr. Knight said that one way textured stucco is applied it looks like a "wormy" finish and that finish has not been approved.
Ms. White questioned the use of vinyl windows. Ms. Giraud said that some people want to use vinyl because of the maintenance and the Historic Landmark Commission can allow vinyl windows in new construction. Ms. Mickelsen asked if the windows would be vinyl or vinyl clad. Ms. Lew said they would be vinyl.
Mr. Parvaz said that the header and the lintels will be this stone material. Ms. Lew said that was correct.
Upon hearing no additional questions or comments, Ms. Mickelsen invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Ms. Susan Mickelsen, the applicant, was present, as well as her architect, Mr. Kim Mangum. She stated that she wanted to correct a couple of things. Ms. Susan Mickelsen indicated that the stucco sample was for color only. She said she would use the smooth stucco finish. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that she plans to use Pella wood windows on the front facade and vinyl windows on the sides and rear. She pointed out that the people at Rocky Mountain Stone do a lot of specialized designs and what they have agreed to do was to use the cast stone on the lintels and the sills. She added that they would look like true stone, but the finish would not be as rough as the ones displayed on the sample board. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that this treatment would be done on the windows on the sides, the rear, and in front. However, the trim around the upper windows would be wood in the ·front and either wood or stone would be used for the lower windows. She mentioned that the soffit and fascia would be wood on the front.
Ms. Mickelsen asked if there were any questions for the applicant. The Historic Landmark Commission made the following inquiries, concerns, and comments:
Ms. White led the discussion by inquiring if the front door would be wood. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that it would be a wood door; the exact style had not been selected at this time.
Mr. Littig inquired about the eyebrow over the door. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the eyebrow would be in the trim over the door, but the roof slope behind the trim would be straight.
Ms. Heid inquired if the eyebrow was a transom window and asked if it opened. The eyebrow element would be on the overhang on the porch in the trim. She said that there would be two glass sidelights but no transom. Ms. Heid inquired about the porch railing. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the porch railing in the back would be wood.
Mr. Parvaz referred to the drawings of the east and west elevations and inquired about certain elements. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the overhand would be the dormers. Mr. Parvaz asked if the trim would be in the same material as the roof. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the trim would be wood. Mr. Parvaz inquired about the rail material around the top of the mansard roof. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that it would be an 8- inch metal railing and only on the top tower.
Mr. Ashdown said that he had no concerns about the materials, but asked if any of the neighboring houses would be directly affected by the height of the house. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that most of the nearby houses are three-story structures and the properties to the south are on a slope. She because of the slope, the proposed house will have a view of the city. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said because of the slope the roof of the houses on the south would be about the same height as the first floor level. Ms. Giraud said that the houses in back face Third Avenue. She said that an alley runs behind the house, which accesses a hodge-podge of existing garages and outbuildings.
Mr. Gordon said that he believed by using a mansard roof the height of the house would be about two feet lower than a regular roof. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said the style of the house is Second Empire and there is another Second Empire house on Fourth Avenue. Mr. Ashdown asked if the upper level was a true second story. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that it was. She pointed to a second floor window and said that the window opens into a bedroom with a coved ceiling. Mr. Gordon suggested that using two single-car garage doors rather than a double-car door would bring down the scale of the garage. It was pointed out that the garage door would not be seen from the street and Mr. Susan Mickelsen said that she would prefer to use the wider garage door. Mr. Gordon also talked about materials. He said that the idea of having brick on the front facade and another material on the sides and rear goes back at least fifty years. The discussion regarding the proposed materials continued. Ms. Susan Mickelsen again said that the stucco would have a much smoother finish than the sample on the sample board.
Ms. Vicki Mickelsen talked about the wall space with no windows on the west elevation. Ms. Giraud said that is something that can be tied back to the ordinance, referenced as the solids and voids on the facades. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said there would be a fireplace in location on the lower floor and in the master bedroom upstairs that would be the bed wall. There was further discussion about adding windows to the east and west elevations. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the windows on the second floor would look into the neighbor's back yard and the west elevation would not be seen from the street. Ms. Vicki Mickelsen said she would like to see Ms. Mickelsen explore the idea of adding more windows to that solid wall.
Mr. Littig inquired if the windows would be true divided lights. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said they would be in front but not on the sides and back. Mr. Littig stated that the windows should be more detailed and set in the walls at least six inches to give them depth and a shadow line and not flush to the surface. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that the windows would have trim around them. Mr. Mangum explained how the trim would create a shadow line around the windows, also there will be several elements that project out. The discussion continued regarding the windows and the window frames. Ms. Rowland said that when windows are flush with the facade, the building would read "suburban" rather than having an "urban" look. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that there would be a lot depth on the front because of the brick, and there is not enough room on the other sides.
• Mr. Fitzsimmons pointed out the inconsistency in the window configuration on the west elevation. There needed to be something that would balance the look of that west elevation wall.
A discussion took place with Ms. Susan Mickelsen and Mr. Mangum talking about the needed wall space inside the rooms and where additional windows would be placed. Some members of the Commission made suggestions of small windows that would be placed high on what Mr. Mangum called the bed wall. Ms. Giraud inquired if the applicant was open to reworking the fenestration of the east and west facades and the design could be worked out in the Architectural Subcommittee. Ms. Susan Mickelsen said that she preferred to have it approved at this meeting. She again talked about the option in the master bedroom of using two side windows or three high windows but she said she did not think either option would look good. Other options were discussed.
Since the Commission had no further questions or comments for the applicant, Ms. Vicki Mickelsen opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission. Upon hearing no requests from the audience, Ms. Vicki Mickelsen closed the hearing to the public, and the Historic Landmark Commission proceeded into the executive session portion of the meeting.
Executive Session
The discussion continued about the solid to void issue regarding the windows and how that issue related to the ordinance and the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the Chair would entertain a motion at any time.
First Motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 005-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission to accept staff’s findings of fact and recommendation, with exception of Section 11.10 in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City regarding the ratio of wall-to window (solid to void) on the east and west elevations not being met, where the refinement of additional details to be explored in the Architectural Subcommittee. Staff would give the final approval of the project.
There was further discussion. Mr. Gordon suggested that a drawing of the wall section be presented to the Architectural Subcommittee for review. Ms. Rowland recommended that the windows be set in at least two-inches and not be flush with the plane of the wall.
Amended and final motion:
Mr. Ashdown moved for Case No. 005-03 that the Historic Landmark Commission accept staff's findings of fact and recommendation, with the exception of Section 11.10, use a ratio of wall-to-window {solid to void) that is similar to that found on historic structures in the district, and Section 11.22, frame windows and doors in materials that appear similar in scale, proportion and character to those used traditionally in the neighborhood, not being met with the criteria in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, pending review by the Architectural Subcommittee and staff of additional detailing and windows on the east and west elevations, and a wall section drawing being provided, with the final approval given by staff. Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Ashdown, Mr. Gordon, Ms. Heid, Mr. Littig, Mr. Parvaz, Ms. Rowland, and Ms. White unanimously voted "Aye". Mr. Christensen and Mr. Simonsen were not present. Ms. Mickelsen, as Chairperson, did not vote. The motion passed.
Ms. Vicki Mickelsen called for a five-minute break at 6:39P.M. She recalled the meeting to order at 6:44 P.M.
OTHER BUSINESS
Presentation of the Westminster Neighborhood Small Area Master Plan by Mark Vlasic of Landmark Design.
Mr. Mark Vlasic and Ms. Jan Striefel of Landmark Design Incorporated were in attendance. Mr. Vlasic used a briefing board to better describe the project.
Mr. Vlasic stated that the 'Westminster Neighborhood" is one of the most dynamic neighborhoods in Salt Lake City, and is hailed as a local example of "mixed-use" living. He said that the Westminster Small Area Master Plan is a refinement of the Sugar House Master Plan, which established broad policies for the greater Sugar House community. The geographical location of the Westminster Neighborhood is bounded by 2100 South, 1300 East, 1700 South, and 700 East Streets. Mr. Vlasic said that the funding to hire a consultant came from a community initiative to obtain funding from a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and other matching funds. He pointed out that there have been many neighborhood meetings and workshops regarding community building to alleviate conflicts between business owners and residents in the neighborhood.
The following is a brief overview of the master plan: The Westminster Small Area Master Plan is an action plan that presents detailed ideas for improving the quality of life for residents and business interests. The master plan proposes general and specific recommendations that address three elements for increasing neighborhood stability and reinforcing the unique "sense of place" in the neighborhood. These elements are 1) Traffic, Transportation, and Circulation, (comprehensive traffic calming); 2) Urban Design and Physical Enhancements; and 3) Community Character and Housing. The details of the proposals are explained in the Decerr1ber, 2002, preliminary draft copy of the master plans, of which a copy was filed with the minutes.
Ms. Striefel mentioned that the residents and business owners of the Westminster Neighborhood are not ready to have the area registered as a local historic district. Mr. Knight pointed out that some individual sites in the area are listed on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, as well as the National Register of Historic Places.
Ms. Giraud said that she believed the Westminster Neighborhood applied for funding from CDBG (to nominate the neighborhood to the National Register. Ms. Giraud also said that Melissa Anderson, the Planning Division's Sugar House Planner, was successful in obtaining a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to develop guidelines for the Sugar House Business District, which is part of the plan area.
There was much interaction between the members of the Historic Landmark Commission, Planning Staff, and the representatives from Landmark Design. The focus was on the creation of a Westminster Neighborhood Conservation District, which is recommended in the master plan.
Some of the Commissioners inquired what constituted a conservation district. The following excerpts are from the master plan: "Neighborhood conservation districts have been used successfully in many cities across the United States. Communities are employing neighborhood conservation districts instead of local historic designations because they are able to offer more flexibility and less restriction to property owners. Neighborhood conservation districts may still have development requirements and controls, but they can be tailored to community needs and be much less restrictive.
A conservation district is generally a change in zoning or an overlay on an existing zone that preserves the area's distinctive atmosphere or character, and the qualities that define a particular area as a neighborhood. The benefit of a conservation district is in identifying and preserving those special qualities, and then putting in place regulations and controls that require new construction and remodeling projects to "fit" into the existing character of the neighborhood.
Neighborhood conservation districts can be almost as restrictive as local historic districts and require specific materials and improvements, or they can be general and address broader aspects of neighborhood compatibility such as the height of structures and setbacks. Generally, only those building modifications that are visible from the street are of concern.
Neighborhood conservation districts can be administered through a review board or commission such as the Historic Landmark Commission, or they may be administered by the City staff as part of the building permit process, utilizing guidelines included in the conservation district overlay ordinance.
As with the local historic designation, there are not tax credits, loan programs, or grants available for renovation and rehabilitation." Ms. Striefel said that the size of conservation districts vary dramatically across the country. Ms. Striefel stated that it was their recommendation, as the consultant, to have an over-the-counter level of review, with specific but generalized architectural and site development design guidelines that look at the issues of compatibility. She said that the incompatibility of some infill housing initiated the idea of a conservation district. Ms. Striefel continued by saying that the existing houses are small and not accommodating to modern family living.
Mr. Vlasic stated that the over-the-counter review process would be the first step that would fit in with the spirit and nature of the plan. He said that it would be something that would not be forceful and would start out at a certain level and as the community would be more involved, perhaps the community, itself, would decide that more control is wanted.
There was some discussion regarding the details of an over-the-counter review process. Ms. Striefel said that the City was in support of the conservation district.
Light rail was discussed. Ms. Striefel said that the neighborhood was supportive of light rail, but at the present time there were no consideration of advancing light rail into the neighborhood. Mr. Wheelwright said that it would be 20 or 30 years before funding was a priority for light rail in the neighborhood.
Mr. Littig stated that it was important in a community that the trees are placed between the automobile traffic and the pedestrian sidewalk. He noted that the drawings in the master plan for 700 East show that the trees are drawn between the sidewalk and the properties.
In conclusion, Ms. Mickelsen thanked the Landmark Design team for their presentation. The decision by the Land Use Appeals Board regarding the Juel Apartment Building.
Mr. Pace stated that he was attending this meeting to facilitate a discussion about the appeal of the Historic Landmark Commission’s decision that was made regarding the demolition of the Juel Apartments. He said that the Land Use Appeals Board heard the appeal last Monday (February 3, 2003) where the Board reversed the Historic Landmark Commission’s decision and allowed the demolition of the structure.
He said that most of the concerns the members of the Land Use Appeals Board voiced was that the Economic Review Panel came to the conclusion that a 3% internal rate of return was not a reasonable rate of return. He further said that the Historic Landmark Commission did not stop with the decision not to accept that finding of the Economic Review Panel and concluded that a 30f<, internal rate of return was a reasonable rate of return. Then the Commission made the statement that any internal rate of return was a reasonable rate of return. Mr. Pace emphatically stated that both the Economic Review Panel and the Historic Landmark Commission made no comparison to back up those statements. He added that neither body investigated the rate of return on investments such as treasury bonds or certificates of deposit, for examples.
Mr. Pace stated that the members of the Land Use Appeals Board based their decision on what was perceived as insufficient evidence in the record to not have supported the decision of the Economic Review Panel and grant economic hardship.
Mr. Pace talked about this learning process and what the Historic Landmark Commission could have done. He said the Commission could have sent the case back to the Economic Review Panel so they would have been forced to develop some comparisons to support its decision. Mr. Pace said that he believed the Land Use Appeals Board was reluctant to remand Mr. Holman to go back through the process for the third time, so a decision was rendered to overturn the conclusion of the Historic Landmark Commission.
The following is a synopsis of the discussion that followed Mr. Pace’s remarks:
Mr. Parvaz still felt that the decision made by the Economic Review Panel was flawed and did not prove that an econorr1ic hardship existed.
Mr. Ashdown believed that comparisons were in the record. He asked if one would have to provide brochures from a bank as evidence or just to say "anecdotally” that it was not sufficient enough. Mr. Pace said that the Land Use Appeals Board did not find any kind of comparison submitted as evidence in the record to support the findings made by the Economic Review Panel or the Historic Landmark Commission.
Ms. Rowland said there should be more direction in the ordinance regarding what a reasonable internal rate of return would be, such as the prime rate plus 2%, for instance. Mr. Pace again said that those figures are not included in the ordinance because of the ups and downs of the financial market.
Mr. Pace said that the burden of proof is on the applicant to show economic hardship. He also said that he believed the Land Use Appeals Board might have remanded the application for economic hardship back through the process for comparisons from both the Economic Review Panel and the Historic Landmark Commission. He noted that some members of the Land Use Appeals Board mentioned that possibility.
Ms. Heid expressed her concern when both the Economic Review Panel and the Historic Landmark Commission had not made any comparison, why was the Economic Review Panel's decision upheld and the Historic Landmark Commission's overturned? Ms. Giraud said that she felt the same way.
Mr. Parvaz said that the Historic Landmark Commission never had enough time, information, or knowledge to completely review all the information provided for an economic hardship case.
Ms. Heid believed the fact that the Economic Review Panel did not come to a unanimous conclusion should have alerted the Land Use Appeals Board that it was not a "clear-cut" decision, although she realized that the majority rules. Mr. Pace said that he did not hear anyone take that into consideration.
Ms. Lew said because of the way the Economic Review Panel is set up, the decision basically comes down to the middle person rather than having a group that is totally objective.
Ms. Giraud noted that the Historic Landmark Commission has the information beforehand so that any comments or direction could be conveyed to the Economic Review Panel prior to the economic hardship review.
Mr. Parvaz said that applicants have been unwilling to supply additional information and analysis when the Historic Landmark Commission requested it. Mr. Knight said that is not entirely true because in this case, for example, Mr. Holman was required to submit additional information on more than one occasion.
Ms. Mickelsen said that the Historic Landmark Commission needed additional training regarding the analysis and figures included in the economic hardship documentation. It was suggested that Ms. Rowland has the knowledge and capability or providing the training.
Ms. White was concerned that the training would not provide the Commissioners with the same knowledge that a professional developer has for analyzing financial figures.
Mr. Parvaz was concerned that the 3o/o internal rate of return would set a precedent on which to base future economic hardship cases. Ms. Giraud said that she did not believe that would be a factor. Mr. Pace stated that the experience is only helpful information to assist in the next economic hardship case.
Mr. Ashdown inquired about an appeal of the Land Use Appeals Board's decision. Mr. Pace stated that if the Historic Landmark Commission or someone else would have to appeal to the Third District Court. However, he said that he would be obligated to represent Salt Lake City and the City's decision would be the decision of the Land Use Appeals Board. Ms. Lew asked if the appeal could be based on that decision being arbitrary. Mr. Pace said that he could not answer the question.
Ms. Mickelsen thanked Mr. Pace for taking his time to come to the meeting and explain the circumstances surrounding the appeals case with the Land Use Appeals Board.
Historic Landmark Commission Annual Report and Website.
Ms. Giraud circulated copies of the Annual Report, a copy of which was filed with the minutes. She pointed out the accomplishments for historic districts in Salt Lake City during the past year.
Ms. Giraud said that there were 5,500 recent mailings sent to residents in the historic districts in Salt Lake City informing them of the Historic Landmark Commission website. Mr. Knight said there were 2,200 visits to the website in January.
The RDA project for the property at 300 West and 500 North.
Ms. Giraud talked about the constructive meeting that Mr. Simonsen, Mr. Littig, and Mr. Christensen, representing the Historic Landmark Commission, had with Mr. Eric Jergensen and representatives from the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency regarding the project at 300 West and 500 North.
Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for 2003.
Ms. Giraud stated that Mr. Simonsen said he was still interested in remaining the Chair if the Commissioners elected him to a second term for the year 2003-2004. She said that Mr. Simonsen believed there was some unfinished business that he would like to see through. When asked, Ms. Mickelsen said that she was also willing to remain in her position as Vice Chair.
Ms. Heid nominated Soren Simonsen, Chair, and Vicki Mickelsen, Vice Chair, to a second term for the year 2003-2004. Ms. Rowland seconded the motion. It was a unanimous decision by the members of the Historic Landmark Commission.
Adjournment of the meeting.
Since there was no other business, Ms. Mickelsen called for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Littig moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Ashdown seconded the motion. A formal vote by the members is not necessary to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Mickelsen adjourned the meeting at 7:40P.M.